1 Rule.
Service is waived. Upon joint request made by the learned advocates for the parties, this matter is taken up for final disposal.
2 This application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [for short, 'the Code'] is filed by the petitioners to quash the FIR being C.R. No.I-208 of 2004 registered with Kalupur Police Station, Ahmedabad for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 467, 471 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code and further proceedings of Criminal Case No.359 of 2005 pending in the Court of leaned Metropolitan Magistrate, Ahmedabad, arising out of the aforesaid FIR and charge-sheet No.31/2005 3 It is submitted that, with regard to the subject matter of the complaint and the proceedings therein including the charge-sheet, it reveals that petitioner Nos. 1 an 2 are loanees and petitioner Nos. 3 and 4 are guarantors and, now, have discharged their liabilities by entering into full and final settlement with respondent No.2-Bank and the Liquidator of the Bank by affidavit dated 29.3.2012 has stated as under:
"[B] I say and submit that as per the scheme introduced by the State of Gujarat, present petitioners settle the HP Account No.1401 and paid entire settlement amount before the bank. Therefore, respondent-Bank issued no due certificate on dated 25.2.2008 which is annexed in said petition by the petitioner as annexure C to this petition.
[C] I say that I have no objection if the FIR at Annexure A registered with Kalupur Police Station vide C.R. No.I-208/04 under Sections 406, 420, 467, 471 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code and subsequent proceedings in Criminal Case No.359/2005 before the Metropolitan Magistrate, Ahmedabad, is quashed and prayer made by the applicant in the present application is granted by this Hon'ble Court."
It is submitted that the amount in question outstanding to respondent No.2-Bank is paid and a conjoint reading of the allegations, at the most, would reveal that the petitioners-loanees had shown inflated stock and so was recorded in the register of the stock. Considering the above, subjecting the petitioners to face rigours of trial would be a travesty of justice and mental agony and undue hardship would be caused to them and, therefore, the impugned complaint and further proceedings may be quashed and set aside.
4 Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case and the law laid down by the Apex Court in the cases of K. Gyansagar vs. Ganesh Gupta & another, reported in (2005) 7 SCC 54, Jagdish Chanana and others vs. State of Haryana and another, (2008) 15 SCC 704, and Madan Mohan Abbot vs. State of Punjab, reported in (2008) 4 SCC 582, and since the amount in question outstanding to respondent No.2-Bank is paid, in my view, relegating the petitioners to undergo the rigors of trial is not just and proper.
Hence, a case is made out to exercise powers under Section 482 of the Code to secure ends of justice and, accordingly, the impugned complaint is quashed and set aside. The application is allowed to the aforesaid extent. Rule is made absolute. Direct service is permitted.
(ANANT S. DAVE, J.) (swamy) Top